Parking Eye two separate parking periods paid for vs genuine pre estimate of loss

cetico

Hello all. Basically here is the situation: the driver enters the car park at 13h31 and buys a ticket at 13h34 for a 2-hour period for £3. Comes back to the car park and buys another ticket at 15h48 for one hour having paid another £2. Leaves the car park at 17h04 therefore having overstayed the last period for 16 minutes.
Now, the interesting point is that, had the driver paid £5 at the start then the allowed parking period would have been 4 hours and there would have been no issues at all.
I have seen some posts saying that the genuine pre estimate of loss is no longer a valid appeal avenue and others saying the opposite. Given the above facts do you think that this would have a chance i.e. it would be the strongest point in the appeal? I have to say that I am not holding any hopes on using the grace period...
Parking Eye have sent one NtK, which is POFA compliant and delivered within 14 days.
Thanks and please let me know in case I am missing something.

The_Deep

I would certainly be happy to present that argument to a judge on the basis that you paid for 4 hours parking and parked for less than that.

Although technically you may have breached their contract, it is a trifing breach imo. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Umkomaas

I have seen some posts saying that the genuine pre estimate of loss is no longer a valid appeal avenue and others saying the opposite.

You might have seen the opposite, but since November 2015 it's been wrong (ParkingEye v Beavis), and given their success in The Supreme Court, PE is the wrong marine to take on on GPEOL.

Given the above facts do you think that this would have a chance i.e. it would be the strongest point in the appeal?

It's the very last point you should be making in an appeal. POPLA appear to instantly find against any motorist proffering GPEOL as an appeal point - they have a ready-made GPEOL template to dismiss the appeal - and use it!

cetico

The Deep, yes I am shocked with these scammers and hoefully proper regulation will prevent this kind of abuse.
Parking Eye seem to be at the top of the list in terms of taking people to court so I am deciding what to do. Based on principle, I would be happy to take the risk of losing the discount but if I have to go to court and there is a risk of the judge not ruling in my favor then I will just pay it. I would also be happy to write a letter to my MP but I am more concerned at this stage with the strategy I should follow and to assess my real chances of winning an appeal at POPLA. Thank you.
To unkomaas, initially I had read some comments which made me think that GPEOL was still a valid argument in a pay and display car park however I understand that this may not be the case.
The thing that makes me furious here is that if this was a car park where you pay upon exiting it this would never happen. They put ANPR which may be way cheaper than a proper entry/exit payment system and then just wait for something to go wrong to collect the £100 penalty. The public is clearly getting no protection here and is being deceived.
Thank you for all the comments so far.

Umkomaas

To unkomaas, initially I had read some comments which made me think that GPEOL was still a valid argument in a pay and display car park however I understand that this may not be the case.

Beavis was, of course, a free car park and the Judges were clear that their Judgment related only to the Beavis car park.

But 'Beavis' has become the shorthand for 'GPEOL is dead' and 'almost all parking 'penalties' are commercially justifiable'. Even many Judges have swallowed it, and POPLA has taken it in, hook, line and sinker.

While a very knowledgeable, legally astute defendant, with an open-minded Judge and a hopeless claimant shouting 'Beavis, innit, M'Lud' might have a chance of arguing GPEOL, the odds aren't stacked in their favour. Personally, I wouldn't fancy arguing it if all my eggs were in the GPEOL basket.

Coupon-mad

It's not about using the phrase 'GPEOL' (avoid it!) it's about distinguishing a paid-for car park and other facts in a case, from Beavis.

Like here, using quotes from Beavis and words like 'unconscionable', not 'no loss':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75360915#Comment_75360915

However, that is for a defence, not for POPLA who don't understand it.

Have you tried a robust landowner complaint, always worth it with PE PCNs?

cetico

Yes I will complain to the landowner but I am not keeping my hopes up as they are a hotel and only seem to care about the guests who paid for a room. So either I find a problem with the signage or the appeal chances seem to be limited here. Thanks again for the comments.